That's what universal healthcare fundamentally is; everyone pays for it regardless of whether they use it or not, and regardless of the quality of service they receive in return.

What, did you think universal healthcare meant everything would be free? That's not possible; doctors and nurses don't work for free.

▲

sajithdilshan 5 hours ago | parent [-]

No it’s not. The universal healthcare is everyone contributing to it equally. That’s not the case in Germany. Private health insurance holders doesn’t contribute to it at all and a certain professions like government workers, doctors, etc. have their own health insurance schemes and doesn’t pay into the statutory health insurance.

Even the people that has to pay for the statutory health insurance pays different amounts and also there’s a group of people that benefits from it even without paying a single euro for it. So it’s not universal at all. Only a certain group pays for the majority and takes on the burden

▲

KellyCriterion 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> certain professions like government workers, doctors, etc. have their own health insurance schemes <

Completely WRONG: you are mixing up "job-dedicated" pension schemes like for lawyers or doctors with the healthcare setup - in healthcare, there are only two parties: "public" healthcare ("GKV") and "private" healthcare ("PKV"), these two types are not anyhow related to the job dedicated pension schemes.

Correct is, mostly all politicians, high-earners, docs, lawyers etc. are chosing the "private" insurance version, for (at least until yet) several benefits compared to the ones using the "public" model.

You are allowed to enter the private model above a certain salary, but you are not forced. It may be cheaper for some time, but at least if kids arrive it gets fucking expensive, since in the public model your children are insured for free,while in private mode you have to pay for them.

Also handling private mode insurance is more work.

▲

Ajedi32 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sounds really complicated, but at the end of the day as long as everyone has health insurance that's still by definition universal health insurance, right? In particular, having "a group of people that benefits from it even without paying a single euro for it" seems mandatory for it to be truly universal.

It sounds to me like you're envisioning something different from universal healthcare, but it's not clear to me exactly what.

▲

sajithdilshan 4 hours ago | parent [-]

What I want to make it clear is that people outside of Germany/Europe, especially Americans have this idea that everyone in Europe has health care because money appears magically to take care of everyone.

But that’s not the case, it is true that everyone would get health care, but a group of people pays a significant portion to maintain that system (which is turning out to be unsustainable day-by-day) compared to majority of the people that truly benefit from it. For me universal healthcare would be something that everyone contributes equally and everyone benefits equally as well.

	▲	toast0 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> For me universal healthcare would be something that everyone contributes equally and everyone benefits equally as well. Your version of universal healthcare must not cover much, because equal contributions that everyone can afford is not very much. Universal healthcare can only work if those with more ability to pay pay more or if you live in some utopia where everyone (including children, disabled people, and those too old to work) has the ability to pay for healthcare. If you want equal contribution, equal benefit, maybe auto repair is a better model. You might get some limited warranty, then anyone can go to any mechanic to get their car fixed, rates are generally posted and you get a mostly binding estimate before the work starts. This is a nice system, but I don't think anyone would call it universal auto repair.